per cent had very poor light; and 51 per cent were not even clean. Out of every 20 rural children, less than 10 are in school on an average school day. Of these, 9 are in a school without playground apparatus; 6 are in a school without proper desks for the pupils; 3 do not have proper light to study by; and 5 are in dirty schoolhouses. Undoubtedly conditions have improved in many communities since 1917, but the fact that the State Department of Education cited the above facts in their 1920 Report upon the Revision of State Aid may be considered sufficient evidence that the conditions of 1917 still persist widely.13

The last few paragraphs have revealed the opportunities offered to children in the state as a whole, as indicated by state averages. We will now examine the educational opportunities of the children in specific counties. To simplify this discussion, nine representative Minnesota counties have been chosen. The counties were selected on the basis of their ability to support schools as measured by the assessed valuation per child in average daily attendance in the schools. In order to make such a selection, it was necessary to rank all of Minnesota's 86 counties on this basis. The nine counties chosen include the two richest, the two poorest, the two falling nearest the median, and the first and third quartile counties. To these was added the county ranking eighth. This results in our having selected from Minnesota's 86 counties, those which ranked 1, 2, 8, 22, 43, 44, 66, 85, and 86 in regard to total wealth per child in average daily attendance in the public schools. (See Table X.)

TABLE X

WEALTH PER CHILDA IN NINE RepresentatiVE MINNESOTA COUNTIES, 1920-21

b Total assessed valuation of taxable property taken from Minnesota Tax Commission, Statement of Assessed Values and Tax Levies in Each County for 1920. Number of children in average daily attendance taken from Reports of County Superintendents, 1920-21, on file in the office of the State Department of Education.

13 Minnesota State Board of Education, Report upon the Revision of State Aid, p. 60.

Among these, St. Louis County is the richest, with $14,915.88 for each pupil in average daily attendance. This is more than six times the wealth of the poorest, Hubbard County, which has only $2,338.27 for each child. Murray, the second richest county, has $9,162.32, or almost four times the valuation of Hubbard County. Forty-nine of the 86 counties of the state have more than twice Hubbard's valuation, but there are 19 whose valuations are not 50 per cent greater. It is evident at once that with respect to the ability to support schools, St. Louis County stands in a class by itself, and that the remaining counties are distributed over a wide range in wealth per child in average daily attendance. It is also true that the counties chosen are well distributed geographically, with at least one in each quarter of the state.

Figure 4 shows how eight of these nine Minnesota counties compared in the year 1921 with respect to their wealth per child in average daily attendance and their total expenditure per child.

It shows us that there is no reason at the present time for believing that because a county in Minnesota is rich, it will provide generously for schools. Hubbard, the least able of the eight counties shown in Figure 4, spends more money per child than any other county in the group, except Sherburne and Nicollet. Sibley, the second most able, spends less money per child than any other county except Chippewa, and exceeds Chippewa by only one dollar.

Table XI gives a summary of the educational chances of a child in each of the nine Minnesota counties studied.

From Table XI it is at once evident that if a child lives in St. Louis County, he will go to school longer to a better trained and better educated teacher in a more expensive schoolhouse than he will anywhere else in Minnesota. As we have already said, St. Louis County is by no means representative of Minnesota.

If, however, he is not so fortunate as to live in St. Louis County, his next best chance will lie in the second poorest county in the state, Mille Lacs. He will be in school a larger share of the time, since Mille Lacs has 79 per cent of her enrollment in average daily attendance, being surpassed in this by Chippewa alone, and in Mille Lacs, if he is an average child, he will be in school six months, two weeks, and four days, as compared, for example, with his chance in Murray, the second richest county, where he would receive only five months, three weeks, and four days of training. His education for the year will cost $103 in Mille Lacs, while in Murray only $1 more would be expended upon him. In Chippewa County, he would receive education costing $78 per year. But in Mille Lacs he will be taught by a teacher nearly as well paid as she would be in any county, and probably better prepared, for fewer than one per cent of the teachers in Mille Lacs are not high school graduates, and with the exception of St. Louis, this county has the largest per cent of teachers who are college graduates.

The most cursory reading of this table shows most alarming educational conditions in the richer counties of the state. In Murray County, the second richest, I teacher out of 4 is not even a high school graduate. In Chippewa County, which ranks forty-third for wealth per child, 1 teacher out of 5 has never graduated from high school. In Hubbard County, the poorest in the state, on the other hand, only 3 teachers out of 100 have had less than high school training. This difference is not to be attributed to unfavorable living conditions in the richer and older counties, but rather to the interest and zeal of the counties with less wealth per child.

It is not fair, however, to leave these figures without reminding the reader that they represent averages for whole counties, and consequently do not show extremes. The poor school facilities reported here do not take into account the 6000 pupils without schools of any kind. For 1921-22, more than fifty school districts in Minnesota levied no local tax for maintenance. In most of these, no school was held, and in the majority of cases pupils were left to their own resources. Some parents took them to other schools, but many of the children walked to other districts or were out of school entirely.

To cite one example, District No. III, Blue Earth County, with a valuation of $129,312, levied no local school tax and maintained no school in spite of the fact that there were 27 pupils living in the district. The county superintendent writes: "No definite arrangement for transportation in No. III. Pupils attended schools nearby and some attended parochial schools." 14

TABLE XII

MINNESOTA SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHICH LEVIED NO MAINTENANCE TAX IN 1921-22, AND ASSESSED VALUATION OF PROPERTY THEREIN

Total valuation upon, which no special local school tax for maintenance was levied for 1921

$4,778,244

a Data taken directly from reports of county auditors furnished by the State Department of Education.

14 Quoted from personal letter of county superintendent.